URL: https://democracy.medway.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=2176

Decision Maker: Council

Outcome: Decision made

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose:

Content: Question A – Lewis Bailey, of Gillingham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:   “Despite receiving legal advice from the Monitoring Officer, the Independent Group refused to alter their motion to a form which would make it compatible with not predetermining any elements of the Local Plan. Council resolved to seek additional external legal advice on this issue, with a view to bring it back.   Instead of just listening to the expert opinion of the Council’s own legal team, the Independent Group forced a situation where the Council had to outsource this work. How much did this external legal advice cost the Council?”   In response, Councillor Curry said that it was not unusual for a second opinion to be sought on some matters for the Council, particularly where the stance taken differed from that which was historically accepted. On this occasion the provision of the external advice had cost £3,120, inclusive of VAT.   Lewis Bailey asked the following supplementary question:   “Given there’s already another motion being put forward by the Independent Group, do we not think this has potential to damage the Local Plan and what are the potential financial implications for the Council if these options pass?”   Councillor Curry considered that there would be an impact if the Local Plan stalled at the current stage, which would be difficult to manage. Medway’s previous Local Plan dated from 2003 when Plans usually only covered a maximum period of 15 years and therefore there would be an implication if there was a further delay.   The Council had been fighting speculative planning applications from developers across Medway, including Cliffe, the Hoo Peninsula and the Capstone Valley. Where the Council opposed these developments, it constantly lost planning enquiries. The cost to the Council had been in the hundreds of thousands of pounds and that could not be sustained. Medway had one of the highest planning enquiry costs of anywhere in the country so the lack of a Local Plan was one that needed to be resolved.   Question B – Katie Lowe, of Rainham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson, the following:   “How many dinosaurs have you seen in Medway this month? You may have noticed 1 of the new 21 signs in Medway’s four Air Quality Management Areas asking drivers to switch off their engines at traffic lights, featuring our recently recruited mascot Dino, a logo designed by young creatives at MidKent College.   These signs have been erected to reduce pollution, protect the health of children and those with asthma, and save our pennies. "Turn Off When You Stop", our Medway Breathes slogan, is intended to go far broader. We are looking to find ways to spread the message and particularly encourage drivers to turn off outside schools. We are already building partnerships across the local communities, schools and businesses to ensure our children’s lungs are protected.   Beyond the School Streets scheme, which is not practical for all schools, what can the Council do to help us to amplify the message and change driver behaviour?”   In response, Councillor Paterson said that the Environmental Protection Team had been pleased to work closely with the Medway Breathes project team on their exciting initiative. Following the successful DEFRA funded Rainham idling project, which tested the effectiveness of different signs to change driver behaviour and switch off their engines when stationary at a busy traffic junction, the Team had been able to use some of the remaining air quality grant received to manufacture and instal new signs across the Medway Air Quality Management Areas as part of a wider idling campaign.   The project team had also committed to using the remaining grant on some smaller signs for schools that were not suitable for inclusion in the School Streets programme. These aimed to encourage drivers to switch off when parked near school gates. Work would continue with the Medway Breathes team on rolling out these signs and the other elements of their project and Councillor Paterson encouraged other Council teams to engage with the project to help maximise its success and was proud to have collected a car sticker to promote the project.   Katie Lowe asked the following supplementary question:   “What message does the Council wish to give parents, carers and grandparents who idle outside Medway schools?”   Councillor Paterson said that he had been clear in his public statements in relation to the School Streets Scheme that it was incumbent on drivers to behave responsibly around schools. This meant reducing speed, not parking around the school if it can be avoided and making some of the journey to and from school on foot where the parent / carer and child were able bodied.   The Scheme was a clear example of how small steps could be taken to make a massive difference to air quality around schools. Councillor Paterson said he did not appreciate any driver who put their own convenience ahead of the health and safety of Medway residents. He was grateful to the questioner for their work and wished them every success.   Question C – Daniel Broom, of Chatham, asked the Portfolio Holder for Heritage, Culture and Leisure, Councillor Gurung, the following:   “My name is Dan Broom from the Q-ship Society – the Q-ship Society was set up to save, restore and home the last Astute Class sloop from World War One, one of three purpose built Royal Navy ships left in the world, and was listed as a national treasure, which currently sits abandoned on Chatham Docks. With the future of Chatham Docks uncertain, the Q-ship's future is also at risk. The loss of such a significant piece of Medway history will surely be catastrophic.   Will the administration honour our maritime history, which directly links to Medway, agree a plan of restoration led by our volunteers and experts, working with the society to find a home for this vessel to be enjoyed as a tourist attraction for many years to come, rather than send her to her grave?”   Answering the question on behalf of Councillor Gurung, Councillor Louwella Prenter thanked Daniel Broom for bringing HMS Saxifrage to the Council’s attention. She said that the Council was extremely proud of the military and maritime history of the area and had celebrated and supported both over many years. This had included marking Armed Forces Day and being a strategic partner in the development of the Chatham Historic Dockyard.   As the Council entered into Year 2 of the 10 year plus partnership with the National Lottery Heritage Fund, it would be happy to meet the Q-Ship Society to discuss proposals for the ship and its potential as a tourist attraction.   Daniel Broom asked the following supplementary question:   “Ideal sites that, come to mind, could be something like industrial sites that are no longer in use or anything like that. Such as Collier Dock, which is behind Asda, any industrial site near water would be ideal for the vessel to be homed.   Councillor Louwella Prenter said that the meeting the questioner would have with the Portfolio Holder could investigate and discuss all these options.   Question D – Alan Wells, of Chatham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry,the following:   “In early 2024, the developer Esquire applied for planning permission to build 34 homes at Grain Village. The application proposed a new footpath connection to a new pedestrian crossing on Grain Road at the rear of the development, with bee and insect habitat planting included in the plans.  Grain High Street, across the road from the development, is where the Co-Op, the main shop in the village, the pub, and a road to the primary school, church and beachfront can be accessed.  On the 4 November, the Council's Planning Committee approved the development with the pedestrian footpath and crossing, and I quote, 'The access arrangements are considered acceptable with pedestrian footpaths and a pedestrian link to Grain Road.'  On 28 November, Esquire submitted a new application to remove the pedestrian footpath connection and planting, submitting the change to its 4 November plans as a ‘non-material amendment’. The Council could have rejected the amendment under the 'non-material' proposal if it had wanted to.  The lack of a footpath to link to the new crossing will mean it will take longer for residents to access the High Street, as well as the loss of the planting of biodiversity flora on verges as originally agreed.  The Council approved the application on 5 December, allowing no time for any objections to the change.  My question to Council is this: Why did the Council not allow villagers at Grain to voice their concerns to Esquire reneging on their original infrastructure plans?”   In response, Councillor Curry said that in terms of the original approval by the Council’s Planning Committee, due to the time limits on obtaining Government funding for affordable homes for MHS Homes, a Non-Material Amendment (NMA) was needed to temporarily change the scheme while various authorisations and legal agreements were sorted. This had been done and a further NMA agreed which returned the scheme to that originally approved by the Planning Committee.   Councillor Curry gave reassurance that nothing would be done to change the scheme permanently without engaging with the local community, it had been a purely administrative process and the scheme would come forward as originally approved.   The proposed development would be delivered as per the plans originally approved by the Planning Committee. The scheme would be built by a local Small and Medium Enterprise developer, which had a reputation for delivering high quality development, using local labour and services and being considerate to local residents during construction, as well as delivering much needed affordable homes, which it was hoped would provide valuable accommodation for local residents.   Alan Wells chose not to ask a supplementary question.   Question E – Vivienne Parker, of Chatham, submitted the following to thePortfolio Holder for Community Safety, Highways and Enforcement, Councillor Paterson:   “I have noticed signs on the Chatham - Maidstone Road warning about pedestrians crossing by the hotel. Does this mean that the crossing by ASDA is no longer going ahead?”   In response, Councillor Paterson said that as part of feedback from local road users at Maidstone Road, Chatham, the Council undertook to look at the possibility of pedestrian facilities serving the route to and from the nearby supermarket at Bridgewood Roundabout.   It was noted that there were crossing facilities along this section of the A229, although they were situated a short distance away. The Council supported and encouraged sustainable travel choices and had developed a Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan. This Plan helped identify where pedestrian and cycle infrastructure could be improved and also helped to prioritise where pedestrian and cycle routes should be improved.   This part of Maidstone Road did not form part of the routes identified as part of the Plan, but the Council had continued to investigate the location. Appropriate road signage had been placed there to help highlight to all road users the potential for there being pedestrians crossing ahead under the existing road layout arrangements. The Council was continuing to consider the matter and to monitor operation.   No supplementary question was asked as Vivienne Parker was not present.   Question F - John Castle, of Chatham, asked thePortfolio Holder for Climate Change and Strategic Regeneration, Councillor Curry, the following:   “Many councils have adopted buses using hydrogen fuel cells for the local delivery of bus services. There are many reasons to do so, climate change is certainly one, hydrogen fuel cells can store green energy and when converted into electricity only water vapour is produced. It's clean energy and delivers clean air. Putting hydrogen infrastructure in place is useful beyond bus services for meeting climate change goals for the Council and local area. For instance, waste and recycling vehicles could also switch to hydrogen fuel cells. Does the Council agree with me that Medway should commit to removing diesel buses and deliver bus services using clean, green energy?”   In response, Councillor Curry said that he was very passionate about this issue. 92% of bus services were operated commercially by Arriva so any decision on vehicles would be a commercial business matter rather than a matter for the Council. This was also the case for similar independent operators who owned their own vehicles. Across operators in Medway, around 80% of the lower emission Euro 5 and Euro 6 engines were now being used and newer buses were currently being introduced by Arriva.   The Medway Bus Improvement Plan had a medium term ambition to improve the bus fleet to cleaner engines. This was estimated to be at a significant capital cost of at least £100m and would be dependent on the availability of private funding and/or Government grants. There were issues associated with the installation of electric charging and getting the electric charging capacity into the bus stations. Sourcing hydrogen was currently an issue in the UK, not enough of it was being produced in an environmentally friendly way and the storage of the hydrogen on site was an issue as the largest Medway bus depot in Gillingham was in a residential area.   The Council was committed to removing diesel buses from Medway and this was part of the Climate Change Action Plan and part of the plans going forward through the Active Travel Group. Councillor Curry said he fully agreed with the principles and that it would be pursued as urgently as possible, dependent on costs and other factors.   John Castle asked the following supplementary question:   “Several times Medway Council has put out a statement saying electric buses are not suitable for Medway and that’s almost certainly true. What the Council doesn’t follow up with is the reasons why hydrogen is inappropriate and I think Councillor Curry has gone some way towards answering that and I just think that it would be helpful if that communication was made clearer in the future.”   Councillor Curry said that he apologised if the messaging had not been correct in relation to Hydrogen. It was a complicated issue and getting the messaging correct was difficult, which depended on where the buses could be located for charging or fuelling with hydrogen. This was a difficult fuel to cope with in an urban area. One thing to consider was where bus depots might be located in the future.

Date of Decision: April 24, 2025